Exploring the Relationship between Global Studies and Ekistics

Ian Fookes
{"title":"Exploring the Relationship between Global Studies and Ekistics","authors":"Ian Fookes","doi":"10.53910/26531313-e2021813634","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The special issue of Ekistics and the New Habitat (2021, vol. 81 Issue No.3) was initially thought to be straightforward and timely. However, since the call for papers in 2019, the terms of the title 'The Global Pacific: Coastal and Human Habitats' have elicited a call for clarification. This article aims to respond by explaining what is understood by the term 'Global Pacific' as it is used in this special issue's title, and thus articulate the position with which the contributors to this issue are associated. To do so, the author discusses the features of transformative global studies, identifying a resistance among global studies scholars to providing any essential definition of their 'boundaryless' discipline. While this openness sits uncomfortably with the efforts of other global studies scholars to define global studies within institutional contexts, it is an ethical stance that enables global studies to constantly redefine themselves and their discipline in terms of their research practice. It is argued that this stance echoes what Michel Foucault described as an ethic of the care of the self, and what others have called subjectivation. Finally, the theory and practice of ekistics is introduced and compared with global studies in such a way as to situate the special issue in relation to these two disciplines. In this way, readers can appreciate how the special issue focuses on a certain 'Global Pacific', which is located in relation to both global studies approaches and ekistic methods.","PeriodicalId":394584,"journal":{"name":"Ekistics and The New Habitat","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ekistics and The New Habitat","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53910/26531313-e2021813634","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The special issue of Ekistics and the New Habitat (2021, vol. 81 Issue No.3) was initially thought to be straightforward and timely. However, since the call for papers in 2019, the terms of the title 'The Global Pacific: Coastal and Human Habitats' have elicited a call for clarification. This article aims to respond by explaining what is understood by the term 'Global Pacific' as it is used in this special issue's title, and thus articulate the position with which the contributors to this issue are associated. To do so, the author discusses the features of transformative global studies, identifying a resistance among global studies scholars to providing any essential definition of their 'boundaryless' discipline. While this openness sits uncomfortably with the efforts of other global studies scholars to define global studies within institutional contexts, it is an ethical stance that enables global studies to constantly redefine themselves and their discipline in terms of their research practice. It is argued that this stance echoes what Michel Foucault described as an ethic of the care of the self, and what others have called subjectivation. Finally, the theory and practice of ekistics is introduced and compared with global studies in such a way as to situate the special issue in relation to these two disciplines. In this way, readers can appreciate how the special issue focuses on a certain 'Global Pacific', which is located in relation to both global studies approaches and ekistic methods.
探讨全球研究与Ekistics的关系
《Ekistics与新生境》特刊(2021年,第81卷第3期)最初被认为是直接和及时的。然而,自2019年征文以来,“全球太平洋:沿海和人类栖息地”这一标题的条款引发了人们对澄清的呼吁。本文旨在通过解释本期特刊标题中使用的“全球太平洋”一词的含义来作出回应,从而阐明本期撰稿人的相关立场。为此,作者讨论了变革性全球研究的特征,确定了全球研究学者对提供其“无边界”学科的任何基本定义的抵制。虽然这种开放性与其他全球研究学者在制度背景下定义全球研究的努力不一致,但它是一种伦理立场,使全球研究能够不断地在研究实践中重新定义自己和他们的学科。有人认为,这种立场与米歇尔·福柯(Michel Foucault)所描述的关怀自我的伦理,以及其他人所说的主体化相呼应。最后,本文介绍了中国计量学的理论与实践,并将其与全球计量学研究进行了比较,从而定位了这两个学科之间的特殊问题。通过这种方式,读者可以体会到特刊是如何关注一个特定的“全球太平洋”的,它与全球研究方法和语言学方法都有关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信